par
Laurent Stevens, J.D.
Selon le manuel de Lockhart, de Kamisar et de Choper
constitutionnel
Loi, processus dû de substantif garanti par les
États-Unis. La constitution est
" une limitation de la substance de
l'action législative par l'état
et gouvernements fédéraux " (publication
occidentale Cie.,
1970, p. 454, emphase
ajouté). Une opinion de majorité de la cour
suprême des États-Unis en 1887
écrit par Justice Harlan a dit: " sous notre
système qui
la puissance est
logé avec le branchement législatif du
gouvernement. Il appartient
à ce service pour exercer de ce qui sont connus comme
puissances de police
l'état, et pour déterminer, principalement, quelles
mesures
sont appro-
priate ou nécessaire pour la protection des morales
publiques,
santé publique, ou la sûreté publique.
... [
mais ] elle pas du tout
suivez que chaque statut décrété en
apparence pour la
promotion de
ces extrémités doit être reçues comme
effort légitime de
la police
puissances de l'état. Il y a, de la
nécessité,
des limites au delà de laquelle
la législation ne peut pas légitime aller.
Tandis
que chaque présomption possible
est être livré en faveur d'un statut, les cours doit
obéir
constitution plutôt que le service de législation du
gouvernement,
et en doit, sur leur propre responsabilité,
déterminer si,
dans
le cas particulier, ces limites ont été
passés. ...
les cours... sont sous un devoir solennel, pour regarder la
substance de
choses, toutes les fois qu'elles commenc sur l'enquête
si
la législature a dépassé les limites de son
autorité.
Si
donc, un statut prétendant avoir été
décrété pour
protéger
la santé publique, les morales publiques, ou la
sûreté publique, a le non
la vraie ou substantielle relation à ces objets, ou est
une
palpable
invasion des droites fixées par la loi fondamentale [
constitution ], c'est le devoir des cours ainsi adjugez, et
donner de ce fait suite à la constitution " (Mugler v. le
Kansas, 123
Les États-Unis 623 à 661).
En son
livre le mythe de la maladie
mentale, professeur de psychiatrie
Thomas Szasz, M.D., dit que " il est usuel de définir la
psychiatrie As
une spécialité médicale concernée par
l'étude, le
diagnostic, et le festin
ment des maladies mentales. C'est un sans valeur et
fallacieux
définition. La maladie mentale est un mythe.
Les psychiatres ne sont pas
concerné par des maladies mentales et leurs traitements.
Dans réel
problèmes de pratique qu'ils traitent personnel, sociaux,
et
moraux dedans
vivant " (publication de Dell Cie., 1961, p. 296). Selon la
couverture
l'article en juillet 6, 1992 chronomètrent le
magasin, schizophrénie est
" le plus diabolique des maladies mentales " (p. 53). Mais
en son livreContre la thérapie, éditée en 1988,
Jeffrey
Masson, Ph.D., a
le psycho-analyste, dit que " il y a une conscience
intensifiée des dangers
inhérent à étiqueter quelqu'un avec une
catégorie de la
maladie aimez le schiz-
l'ophrenia, et beaucoup de gens commencent à se rendre
compte qu'il y a non
une telle entité " (publication d'Atheneum/Macmillan Cie.,
1988, p. 2).
S' il n'y a aucune une telle entité comme la maladie
mentale, les lois de bidon qui
autorisez les personnes incarcerating pas parce qu'elles ont
exécuté
actes illégaux mais simplement parce qu'elles font
être "
la maladie mentale "
constitutionnel?
Supposez
cela au lieu de la croyance en maladie
mentale, les gens
**time-out** aujourd'hui croire dans mauvais esprit
possession et expliquer étrange ou
comportement inacceptable comme produit des spiritueux
mauvais.
En supposez
ou tous les états ont alors décrété
des lois autorisant
l'incarcera-
tion des personnes qui sont possédées par des
spiritueux
mauvais (au lieu des personnes
qui censément sont possédés par des maladies
mentales). Ce serait
un exercice approprié et constitutionnel de puissance
législative?
Mal
la possession d'esprit n'a aucune réalité objective
et
existe seulement dans
imaginations des personnes qui croient en spiritueux mauvais.
Maladie mentale
également n'a aucune réalité objective et
existe seulement
dans les imaginations
des personnes qui croient en maladie mentale. Le
comportement
qui obtient
les gens étiquetés mentalement malades (ou
possédés par
des spiritueux mauvais) ne sont pas
imaginaire; mais possession mentale d'esprit de maladie ou
de mal en tant que
l'explication de pourquoi ils se comportent
comme le font ils est.
Aujourd'hui dans beaucoup d'états des Etats-Unis il
y a des lois qui
permettez l'engagement involontaire (incarcération) des
personnes pour
seule maladie mentale sans exiger une apparence que la
personne a
a jamais commis un acte illégal. Si nous voulons
aux personnes d'incarcerate
parce qu'elles semblent particulières à nous ou
parce
qu'elles disent des choses cela
ne soyez pas vrai ou cela ne semblent pas raisonnable, ou
parce que nous pensons cela
en dépit de a après cela n'inclut aucune
activité
illégale qu'ils pourraient faire
est quelque chose de mauvais à l'avenir, alors cela ce que
les lois devraient indiquer -
bien que faire ainsi pourrait soulever des questions
constitutionnelles.
Utilisation
" la maladie mentale " comme justification pour
l'incarcération est As
illogique et injustifié en tant qu'expliquer le
comportement
que nous détestons et
ne comprenez pas comme produit de possession mauvaise
d'esprit et
ayant des lois d'engagement pour les personnes qui sont
possédées par mal
spiritueux.
Puisque
les lois dans quelques états utilisent " la
maladie mentale " comme plante du pied
justification pour les personnes incarcerating qui ont pu ne
jamais avoir fait
quelque chose illégal (ou parfois en tant qu'un a
exigé
l'élément couplé à
besoin d'allégué l'hospitalisation ou la future
conduite
prévue - *** TRANSLATION
ENDS HERE ***
"dangerousness"), and since there is no such thing as
mental
illness, are not these statutes violations of substantive due
pro-
cess?
There are
a few groups in particular who tend to be the target
of America's involuntary psychiatric commitment laws.
Included in
these are the young, the old, and the homeless. Sometimes
old
people are placed in mental hospitals just to get them out of
the
way. In most cases, nursing homes would be more
appropriate, but
often nursing homes are not preferred by the family because
they
are more costly and must be paid for by the family.
Involuntary
psychiatric commitment laws are used to get homeless people off
the
streets and sidewalks. Adolescents are committed by parents
as a
way of shifting the balance of power towards parents in
intra-
family conflicts, parents usually being the ones who have the
money
to hire psychiatrists to incarcerate their family member
adversaries and define their opposing views and disliked
behaviors
as illnesses. In many states parents have statutory power
to
commit their children who are under age 18 without judicial
proceedings, in large part because of the decision by the
U.S.
Supreme Court in Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979).
This Supreme
Court decision in 1979 is probably largely responsible for the
fact
that in the years immediately following it "adolescent
admission
rates to psychiatric units of private hospitals have jumped
dra-
matically, increasing four-fold between 1980 and 1984" (Lois
A.
Weithorn, Ph.D., "Mental Hospitalization of Troublesome
Youth: An
Analysis of Skyrocketing Admission Rates", 40 Stanford Law
Review
773). According to another report, "private
psychiatric hospital
admissions for teenagers are the fastest-growing segment of
the
hospital industry. ... Between 1980 and 1987 the number of
people
between 10 and 19 discharged from psychiatric units increased
43
percent, from 126,000 to 180,000. One reason is the
aggressive
advertising used by for-profit psychiatric facilities"
(Christina
Kelly, "She's Not Crazy But 14-year-old Sara got committed
anyway",Sassy magazine, March 1990, p. 44). According to
another report,
between 1971 and 1991 "the number of teenagers hospitalized
for
psychiatric care has increased from 16,000 to 263,000"
(Timemagazine, August 26, 1991, p. 12). According to
University of
Michigan professor Ira Schwartz, "psychiatric hospitals are
turning
into jails for kids" (Sassy magazine, March 1990, p.
44).
Of course, mental "hospitals" are jails for all
persons
detained there against their will. Furthermore, they are
places
where people may be incarcerated with no showing of prior
illegal
(or otherwise harmful) conduct - only "mental illness".
Yet
statutes authorizing commitment for mental illness do not
define
mental illness but let supposed professionals (psychiatrists)
define it any way they see fit. If subjected to proper
constitutional scrutiny, such laws would be void for vagueness,
as
would a statute allowing imprisonment for something called
"crime"
but which failed to define crime - leaving potential
"criminals" in
doubt about whether marijuana or alcohol use is legal,
whether
driving 65 mph on the highway is legal, or whether the age of
consent for what in the presence of a statute would be called
statutory rape is 16 or 18 or some other age - allowing each
prosecuting attorney to determine after the fact whether a
particular act is definable as "crime", much as
psychiatrists often
determine after the fact whether a particular act or expression
of
ideas constitutes "mental illness".
Have we
forgotten that America is supposed to be a nation
where all law-abiding persons are guaranteed liberty?
How can a
person know what behavior is prohibited if the laws are not
clearly
written? People like myself who believe strongly in
individual
freedom argue that violation of the rights of others should be
the
only acts prohibited by law; others will defend victimless
crime
laws. In either case, violation of law should be the
only basis
for depriving a person of his or her liberty over his or her
protest.
One 14
year old girl who had been involuntarily committed to
a private psychiatric hospital after an argument with her
parents
said "My parents would always threaten me with the
hospital" (Sassymagazine, March 1990, p. 82). But it isn't only
adolescents and
old people who are threatened with psychiatric incarceration
in
their conflicts with family members. In her autobiography,
Will
There Really Be a Morning?, actress Frances Farmer tells how
even
when she was 30 years old her mother in seemingly every
dispute
would threaten her with commitment to a mental hospital near
her
home in Seattle, Washington:
"`I'm just about at the end of my rope with you,' she
warned.
`I've just about had all I can take. I've put up with you
for
years and what do I get for it? Nothing! Absolutely
nothing! But
you're my daughter and you're going to do exactly as I say, or
back
[to the mental hospital] you go. Do You understand me?
Back you
go! And this time for keeps! ... You're a disgusting brat!'
she
spat contemptuously.
"`I'm a thirty-year-old woman,' I answered bitterly.
`And I
know damn good and well that you'll send me back the first
chance
you get.' ... I could not cope with another fight. `I'm
going back
to bed,' I said flatly. `This whole thing is absurd.'
"I
started up the stairs, but her reply stopped me short.
`I'm sending you back, Frances.' I was chilled by her
sudden calm.
`And this time,' she went on, `I'll see you that you stay.'
...
"It
was morning, and I heard my mother rise. It startled me
when she knocked softly at my door.
"`Frances,' she said calmly. `I'd like you to
get dressed and
come down stairs. There are some people here who want to
meet
you.' ...
"My
mother was in the living room with two uniformed men...and
I knew! ... They straddled me, and I felt the rough canvas
of the
straitjacket wrap around me and buckle into place" (Dell
Publishing
Co., 1972, pp. 15-33).
In
America and other nations that claim to value freedom and
defend human rights, legislators writing "mental
health" laws and
those making personal or judicial decisions about what to do
with
a so-called mentally ill person or persons should keep in mind
that
America's guarantees of personal freedom are the basis for
American
patriotism. Listen, for example, to the words of a
patriotic song,
"God Bless the USA": "If tomorrow all the things
were gone I'd
worked for all my life, and I had to start again with just my
children and my wife, I'd thank my lucky stars to be living
here
today. `Cause the flag still stands for freedom, and they
can't
take that away! And I'm proud to be an American,
where at least I
know I'm free. And I won't forget the men who died who
gave that
right to me. And I'll gladly stand up next to you and
defend her
still today. `Cause there is no doubt I love this Land.
God bless
the USA!" (emphasis added). Similarly, a Russian
immigrant to the
United States said this in an article published in Reader's
Digestin 1991: "I looked up at the [United States] flag,
fluttering in
the breeze. ... Suddenly, I understood ... America isn't
about
school sweaters or Johnny Mathis records or shiny new cars.
It's
about freedom and opportunity - not just for the privileged or
the
native-born - but for everyone" (Constantin Galskoy,
"How I Became
an American", Reader's Digest, August 1991, p. 76).
The USA's
official national anthem "The Star Spangled Banner"
refers to Amer-
ica as "the land of the free". The Pledge of
Allegiance to the
Flag of the United States of America ends with the words
"...with
liberty and justice for all." One of America's most
popular and
prominent symbols is the Statue of Liberty. Another
statue, this
one sitting atop the dome of the U.S. Capitol Building in
Washington, D.C., is called the Statue of Freedom.
In 1987 in a
law journal article discussing constitutional due process,
U.S.
Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., said "every
enact-
ment of every state...may be challenged at the Bar of the Court
on
the ground that such action, such legislation, is a deprivation
of
liberty without due process of law...those ideals of human
dignity
- liberty and justice for all individuals - will continue to
inspire and guide us because they are entrenched in our
Constitu-
tion" (Case & Comment, September-October 1987, p.
21). Imagine how
empty and meaningless these patriotic words in these
articles,
patriotic songs, the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, the names
of
these national monuments, and the U.S. Constitution sound to a
law-
abiding person who has been imprisoned (involuntarily
"hospital-
ized") for so-called mental illness in the USA merely
because
others dislike his or her thoughts, ideas, emotions,
lifestyle,
personality, or lawful (even if irritating) behavior, or because
he
or she gets along poorly with others in his or her family.
A reason involuntary psychiatric commitment of law-abiding
people is a violation of constitutionally guaranteed
substantive
due process is it is contrary to the most important values
America
and other democracies claim to stand for. This is just as
true for
those under the arbitrarily defined age of majority as it is
for
adults. In his inaugural address on January 20, 1989,
President
George Bush said "Great nations, like great men, must keep
their
word. When America says something, America means it -
whether a
treaty, or an agreement, or a vow made on marble steps."
One of
the consequences of belief in the myth of mental illness is
Ameri-
ca's failure to live up to one of its most fundamental
promises:
liberty for all law-abiding Americans.

THE AUTHOR, Lawrence Stevens, is a lawyer whose practice has
included representing psychiatric "patients". His
pamphlets are
not copyrighted. You are invited to make copies for
distribution
to those who you think will benefit.